Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation; the description adds role restriction and crucially reveals that the published post is issued with a new id so pollers will treat it as new. It does not state what happens to the pending entry, but it does not contradict the destructiveHint or idempotentHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, with the access rule and core action in the first sentence and the key side effect in the second. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema already covers the return value, and the description gives the essential invocation context: role, source of the only parameter, and observable behavior. The only small omission is the fate of the pending item after approval, but that is not required to make a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero schema-description coverage, the description must carry the meaning, and it does by specifying that pending_id comes from board_pending. The schema provides the integer type and requiredness; the provenance is enough for an agent to choose the right identifier. It doesn't cover error cases for invalid or stale ids, but one parameter is well-served.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete action ('publish') and a specific object ('a waiting post'), and ties the identifier to board_pending. This distinguishes board_approve from siblings such as board_reject (publish vs reject) and board_post (waiting vs immediate), so an agent can infer its role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Overlord only' supplies an explicit authorization gate, and 'waiting post (pending_id from board_pending)' tells the caller exactly when the tool applies. It doesn't name an alternative tool like board_reject or state a when-not-to-use condition, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.